State v. Schriml, 2013 Ohio 2845

Schriml was stopped around 2:00 a.m. for a marked-lanes violation on a one-way street; he was then detained, questioned, and subjected to field sobriety tests after a DUI-related arrest was considered.
During the stop, Trooper Young conducted a pat-down for safety before escorting Schriml to her cruiser and later detecting a strong odor of alcohol in the cruiser.
Schriml admitted drinking that evening after being placed in the cruiser; he underwent HGN, walk-and-turn, and one-leg stand tests, all yielding multiple impairment clues, and a breath test showed .095 BAC.
A suppression motion was denied, and Schriml was convicted of OVI after a no-contest plea; his appeal challenges the legality of the stop, detention, sobriety testing, and breath-testing procedures.
The trial court found substantial compliance with NHTSA/ADAP standards and upheld the breath-test procedures, leading to affirmance of the judgment on appeal.
The majority affirms; the dissent would suppress the evidence due to improper fishing-expedition-style detainment and pat-down beyond the initial stop.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the initial stop supported by probable cause or reasonable suspicion?	Schriml	Schriml	Stop valid; reasonable suspicion supported continued detention.
Was Schriml improperly removed to the cruiser and subjected to a pat-down?	Schriml	Schriml	Detention and brief removal were permissible to check driving record; no improper fishing expedition concluded.
Were the field sobriety tests conducted in substantial compliance with NHTSA/ADAP standards?	Schriml	Schriml	Tests conducted in substantial compliance; admissible evidence.
Was the breath-test administration properly admitted and the State's notice sufficient?	Schriml	Schriml	Breath test admissible; State required only basic compliance notice given motion’s general claims.
Was there probable cause to arrest for OVI based on totality of circumstances?	Schriml	Schriml	Probable cause shown by odor, admission, and breath-test results supported arrest.

Dayton v. Erickson, 76 Ohio St.3d 3 (1996) ( Probable-cause-based stop for traffic violations permits further investigation.)
State v. Lozada, 92 Ohio St.3d 74 (2001) (Pat-downs and vehicle detentions during routine stops must be tailored to the stop’s purpose.)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (Totality of circumstances governs reasonable suspicion beyond initial stop.)
State v. Robinette, 80 Ohio St.3d 234 (1997) (Illegal-seizure concerns when detaining beyond original purpose without justification.)
State v. Boczar, 113 Ohio St.3d 148 (2007) (HGN admissibility and foundation for testing under due standards.)
State v. Mimms (Pennsylvania v. Mimms referenced), 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (Routine stop detention and order to exit vehicle permissible; intrusiveness considered.)
Pennsylvania v. Minns, 434 U.S. 106 (1977) (Examination of vehicle occupants during stops and safety considerations.)
State v. Evans, 67 Ohio St.3d 405 (1993) (Detention and investigation standards during traffic stops.)